"Too heavy?" "Too light?" Meet the Relative Racket Finder

Players rackets are too demanding for the modern game! Granny sticks will make your arm fall off!

Etc.

What's too heavy? What's too light? What's too small a hitting area? Who's to say? Everyone has there own opinion. If only someone could define an appropriate range...

What if someone sampled the specs from, oh say - 103 rackets currently for sale on TW?

What if someone took those specs and used them to define a "normal" range for each spec (where "normal" means +/- one standard deviation relative to the average)? What are the normal ranges in this set of 103 rackets, anyway? Here:

Headsize: 94.6-105.6 sq in
Length: 26.9-27.4 in
Mass: 295.5-341.6 g
Points: -0.3-9
Swingweight: 312-332.3
Stiffness: 60.8-68.3
C.O.P.: 52.8-55.1 cm

Let's call this "Step 1."

What if someone then attempted to define the Little Red Riding Hood frame - not too much or too little of anything, just right. What if just right actually meant within the "normal" range of +/- 1 SD? Nothing out of balance.

Some limits mean more than others, of course. Who cares about the length limit? Can you ever be too flexible? Assuming no lower bound on flex or any bound on length, if you went through the exercise, you'd find these rackets would fit within all the ranges described above, in order of weight from high to low:

fxp radical tour
m speed 98
tour 10 gen II
lm prestige mp
tour 10 mp v
m speed 105
ki5
rdx 500 hd
rdx 500 mp
ki5x
o3 tour
ki15 pse
ki10 pse
tfight 315
warrior mp
laver type sx
aeropro drive
o3 white
maxply
lm radical mp
fxp instinct
lm instinct
fxp radical mp
shark mp
bb 10
pure control zylon
pure control zylon plus
nTour
o3 red

Let's call this result "Step 2." You'll notice that's a pretty playable range of frames. All specs in normal range will do that.

Because you read the TW boards, you are one picky mofo. You hate the fact that I defined the model range in step 1 with the entire set of 103 frames. You want to use only players frames. Or only granny frames.

You probably also hate the fact that I elected to use C.O.P as a bounding criteria in step 2. Who cares how high or low the sweetspot is? And yes, you also think there can be such a thing as too flexible, so my list stinks. Maybe there's no such thing as too much hitting area in your mind, or too little swingweight.

Fine. Make your own list: http://specgeek.50megs.com/RelativeRacketFinder.html

Define your own ranges for step 1. Indicate what bounds - high, low, both, neither - you want to use in step 2. Behold:

1) a list of rackets that pass your definition of "normal."
2) a list of rackets that fall outside your "normal" ranges - that also tells you which spec (stiffness, headsize, etc.) caused a particular racket to fail.

All relative to what's on the market today.

No brand loyalties. No personal biases. Just data.

 

Interesting idea, but I think that it would never work. Everyone is a bit different and everyone who actually cares about this sort of thing will end up with what they like, not what someone defines as normal. Choice is good. I'm all for the manufacturers building whatever they think they can sell. And the people who actually care will find something they like, and if they don't there's always lead tape.

 

Woooow - someone's got too much time on their hands!!

 

There's no such thing as a "normal" racquet. That's sort of like saying there's such a thing as "normal" music, "normal" food, "normal" books, etc. The only thing that matters is what YOU like, even if it's "abnormal".

 

I have a bunch of frames on my rack, different brands, sizes (93-100") etc., all weighted and balanced the same (my comfort zone, 360g 12pts HL), but max stiffness of 65. Further, they are all strung at 55# with the same gut hybrid. Each and every one of them seem to work for me (keeping me from making a definitive decision). However, there are varying levels of spin, power, and comfort that can be further tweaked with string tension alterations. Due to my grip/handle mod, the heavier frames required the use of the lighter, synthetic grip, which I don't prefer.

Although I have grooved strokes and a full swing, I am far from my prime and most likely becoming weaker with age :-( Moreover, I am coming to the conclusion that the lighter, more modifiable frames seem to work better for me because they have a bit more inherent power. Most importantly, with the addition of a significant amount of mass added to the upper hoop (to counter my grip mod), the sweetspot is simultaneously raised to my own contact zone (slightly above center). Further, the additional mass provides more power and stability on off-center hits...

It has been enlightening and I will discuss my findings at the completion of two more experiments in a future post...

 

The point is there's bell curve to the number of players in the NTRP levels, there's a bell curve to racket specs. All racket specs. People are of course free to purchase (and assumedly, use) whatever they want.

However, the fact remains that the fat part of the playing curve lies between 3.0-4.5 NTRP. It starts to get hard to find suitable players at 2.5 and below and 5.0 and above. Nobody had any data, and barely any reasoning behind where they drew their own arbitrary distinctions for what was "appropriate" vs. what was not.

I do.

The DATA says that anything more demanding than a Head LM Prestige MP, perhaps an nSixOne 95 or Core 1 no. 6, probably isn't doing your game any favors, relative to what else is on the shelf.

10.8, maybe 10.5 oz and 105-110 sq inches seems to be the other end of the limit, assuming the specs are right. That's the RQ-7, o3 red, v1 mp/os, nTour.

How light is too light? Now we know. How heavy is too heavy? We know that, too. Too big, too small, etc. It's pretty unlikely that your game is truly exceptional, outside the range of normal (at either end), so why are your equipment choices exceptional? Do you have exceptional needs beyond what's out there? Or do you just like to think so?

I could lend any open player an FXP Rad Tour, mSpeed 98, tour 10 * mp, or RDX 500 mp and they'd be just fine. I could lend any absolute beginner an o3 red or v1 mp or os - same thing - only now they won't outgrow their purchase in the first 6 months. And they're growing their games around equipment that is quantifiably not that far off the mark compared to their other choices.

What if the 2.5's and the 5.0's traded the frames mentioned above with one another? Are those ridiculous choices for either group? Nope. Not ideal, but not silly, either. Cue TW playtester Wendy's comments for even more evidence.

The typical TW racket argument uses examples from the extreme ends of the spectrum, precisely because no one was willing to define the middle. That's no longer true. You don't like the boundaries I've found? Let's see your data.

What? No data? Then sit down, cause you're in the fat part of the TW noise bell curve and I've heard it all before.

 

I think that instead of making comments like 'you have too much time' or 'nothing is normal' ,we need to commend ohplease for being so enthusiastic about the game and devoting time to coming up with such numbers. Being a college instructor, I know that encouraging such inventiveness goes longer than denouncing it.

 

vkartikv - It's really just a matter of coming up with your own answers. Others don't like my answers? That's ok. Nobody likes their answers either. Or that other guy.

At least mine have more going for them than personal anecdotes/insults and soap box posturing. Or brand fondness/sponsorship. Or preferences for either end of the range.

There's a substantial inertia around this fight around here, you think these numnuts want to just drop it when presented with reasonable and well-reasoned answers? Of course not.

 

I think it's all subjective, and always will be, no absolutes. There are some players playing quite well ( yes, lower ranked ) on the tour with the O3 Red, and doing ok, and many club pros using sticks outside *ohplease's* realm, so it comes down to whatever works - just smile and be happy..

 

ohplease,

Where did you get the COP stats?

Did you write that Swing applet yourself?

 

1) COP is calculated on the fly.

assuming:
-mass in kg
-balance expressed in cm from end handle (calculated on the fly from points and length)
-hand width = 10 cm

COP = (swingweight/(mass *(balance - hand width))) + hand width

2) I did write it myself. I'm not a huge fan of Swing, but it gets the job done when I need to put something on the web quick and dirty like.

 

I really fail to understand the value of coming up with a list of "normal" racquets. Does that imply that people who don't use one of the "normal" racquets, are somehow "abnormal"?

If that's the case, then I wish I were as "abnormal" as Federer is, as then I'd also be rich and famous. I mean "normal" people are not rich and famous nor can they play ATP level tennis, right?

 

I was wondering how the one standard deviation for the length could fall below 27?

 

The value is a guideline that people can start from. Guidelines are not meant to be strictly adhered to, but to give some general direction.

 

I think the problem is that most people who really care don't want average equipment. I certainly don't. I want something well above average. Of course maybe that's just me and I am in the minority. I do think that looking at the numbers is useful, but in the end it still comes down to individual choices. In this case, the RDX 500 MP is in the "normal" range, but the Mid is not. In my playtesting of both frames, I liked the mid better. I still think the MP is a good frame, and I play fine with it, but you can rip one handed backhands better with the Mid. Not to mention it volleys better. Some think it serves better, but I didn't really notice any advantage for the MP on serves. So, I think it may be a useful guideline, but you still need to playtest and pick a frame that feels right for you. It's just such a personal choice that it is going to be hard to take statistical data and apply it to a particular individual. It can certainly help steer someone in a right direction, and that could be quite helpful. It's so hard to pick a new frame, so I commend you in the effort.

 

Kevo, where in Richardson are you located? I visit there every few months (75 and Campbell to be precise)

 

Exactly. The output is a guideline. In fact, the inputs are user controlled, so you can even make your guideline suit your personal biases if you like, however rational or delusional they might be.

In fact, the more I think about it, basically tennis rackets have two requirements: 1) not suck and 2) be at least as good or better for your game than your current stick. That second part is what playtesting is for.

That first part is what the numbers can do for you. We want rackets that are at least somewhat familiar, even if they bring something new to the table. What's familiar? Specs within range of what else is out there. I didn't even realize the o3 red was well reviewed by TW until AFTER I saw it in the list of results. And why did the TW playtesters review it so well? What did they like about it?

They liked it because they didn't have to adjust their games to play with it. Why is that? Because the o3 red's specs are in range.

That's also why there's a list of the frames that didn't make the cut - and why. So the RDX 500 MP makes it, but you look at the mid and see the only reason it didn't make it was the headsize, which is something that doesn't bother you in particular? Then go right ahead. In contrast, if your heart's set on a frame that's got multiple specs out of range (headsize, mass, sweetspot's off, ugly paintjob, whatever) - then maybe you should rethink your choice a little. Note that the RDX 500 mid has earned a reputation as one of the more user friendly frames in that head size - now we know why.

Use the applet, or don't - but don't continue to pretend that your personal perspective is consistent with the marketplace, just because you say so. Until someone does me one better, this is the definitive marketplace sample (and by extension, sample of what people are actually using) - whether you like it, or see value in it, or not.

 

I disagree. I think if you look at the review, several playtesters commented on the frames lack of weight and lower control level. Furthermore, by your logic, it seems other frames with similar specs should also get a good review, and that hasn't been the case.

I also don't see what the point of the "range" is? Why would you base your racquet choice simply on what manufacturers make available? Why should that dictate what you use? And what about customization? Why can't you tweek a frame out of the range to play like a frame in the range?

I guess what I'm saying is, most players that have tried a lot of racquets already have a "range" of their own. They know what static weight, swingweight, balance, etc. that they are looking for. Whether that falls into the "normal" range of what's available is insignificant IMO. The key is to match the specs that work for them. How do they know what those specs are? Based on pure experimentation, not on what Prince or Wilson decide to offer this year.... Just my two cents.

 

Again: you can define your own range. Limit the inputs to rackets that have head sizes no larger than 95 and you get the range of specs typically available in midsize frames today - because as much as you might to go back in time and buy a St. Vincent, you can't. That's the first reason to make YOUR CHOICE from what MANUFACTURERS OFFER.

The point is that simple minded rules of "no headsizes below 90" or "swingweight around 315" or "nothing under 12 oz" tells only part of the story. The only thing "wrong" with the RDX 500 mid is the headsize. It's otherwise in range. nSixOne 95 and POG 110? They're kinda heavy, but otherwise fine. PS 60 85? It's well outside several ranges compared to what's available today.

True, the range moved underneath it. Why is that? Are the manufacturers forcing the range to move or are consumers? Neither. There's lots of things informing what's going on in the marketplace (what's made, what's bought, what works in today's game, what's worth carrying over from the past, etc.) today. It is what it is. You want to stick to what you know? Be my guest. You want to know what's going on today? Use the applet.

As far as the o3 red, there might have been the odd comment consistent with what you've pointed out, but the executive summary is hardly inconsistent with my comments:

"Heading into the playtest our team had the general opinion that the O3 Red was a racquet for intermediate players. However, it proved to be a worthy stick for even our advanced playtesters - impressing them from all areas of the court. Add that to the fact that our lowest rated playtester also really enjoyed hitting with this one, and the O3 Red's versatility really comes to the surface. While there is no racquet that's perfect for everyone, there are certain racquets that offer performance across levels. The O3 Red is such a racquet. No matter what your level, if you're looking for mobility, comfort and some controllable power, you should hit the courts for a playtest with the O3 Red"

We can count all the comments contributing to your read of that review vs. mine if you want.

Further - there are lots of sticks competing in the o3 red's space, but surprisingly few get it right across multiple specs like it does.

Finally - if you know what your range is, then by all means, don't bother with the applet. If you want to customize? See the lead tape calculator in my sig.

 

Not too far from there actually. I am in east Richardson off of Renner rd.

 

I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand what you're saying. Can I buy a St. Vincent - Yes, I can. Can I play with a discontinued frame if I want - absolutely. Do I want to know "what's going on today" as you put it? Heck no, I personally could care less what's more marketable, or more popular. I know what I like, I know what specs are important to ME, and whether they are "normal" or not I could care less. And I don't need a range of what manufacturer's offer to determine what I want. Play-testing frames has already given me all the information I need, and I think if you ask others, they will tell you the same. Most of us can look at the specs for a new frame and tell you right away if it's something worth trying, or even customizing. What difference does it make if we choose to play with something that "MANUFACTURERS NO LONGER OFFER"?

 

ohplease - You've put a lot of thought and time into this. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Question: It's probably obvious, but I cannot fathom what "C.O.P." is. (Center of ______???)

- KK

 

Let's get this straight. You're willing to go out of your way to find and buy discontinued frames. You're uninterested in what's going on in the current tennis racket marketplace. You purposely describe yourself at a fringe element. You know what you like. That's fine. Go on with your bad self, sister.

That "Most of us can look at the specs for a new frame and tell you right away" part? Not true. Firstly, because you can't generalize your experience to everyone else. Secondly, because there's ample evidence of people NOT knowing, even after extensive demos. Thirdly, because there are lots of frames that people don't consider, at either end of the spectrum, that maybe they should.

I'm not sure what you want exactly. Oh yes, totally useless - I'll take the applet down right now? You want others to agree that it's totally useless? They're not allowed to look for themselves and see?

Maybe you should keep on posting about yourself and claiming that's how everyone else thinks? That's the kind of thing this board is used to, after all.

 

I'm not convinced that even a guideline is all that meaningful when it comes to tennis racquets. People are all so different in what they like and dislike in a tennis racquet, as evidenced by all the disagreements on this board! People will like what they like and they will hate what they hate. There doesn't have to be any rational reason to it.

Isn't it sort of like having a guideline for the type of food you should like to eat? Some people will just like Italian food, but hate Chinese food. Or some will love Japanese food but hate Mexican food. So should we tell these people they should be eating the "average" food? How would a food guideline help people with completely different tastes in food?

 

I think you need to relax. Everyone is free to do whatever they like. If I was wrong in stating that I a lot of the posters here knew what specs were important to them, then I apologize. Certainly all the ones I've dealt with have, but maybe it's a bad assumption nonetheless. Good luck with the "applet" and the quest to be more normal....

 

I see that you put a lot of time and effort into this in the noble pursuit of wanting to help others in choosing a racquet, and I commend you for that.

However, why does our personal perspective have to be consistent with the marketplace at all? If 95% of the market was full of racquets like the O3 Red or n3, does that mean that that's what we should be using? Certainly not! We can still choose to use a racquet from that other 5%, not just to be different, but perhaps racquets in that other 5% just work better for our games. And if 100% of the mass market was granny sticks? You can still go to Vantage and get a custom made player's racquet for yourself. Or you can just keep using the racquets you already have and stop buying new ones.

So why is following the market and going with the herd mentality a good thing? Remember, that it was the herd mentality that caused the Internet stock bubble and a lot of people got wiped out and lost their life savings in that bubble.

So would you buy an SUV just because everyone else is buying SUV's? Or would you wear Hrbaty's pink, holes-in-the-back, Lotto tennis shirt if everyone else wore one?

IMO, there's nothing wrong with going against the market, and in many cases, you're better off for it.

 

Totally agree. Just what I was trying say, but stated much more clearly. I'm with you BP!

 

Umm. Because they sell it??

I'm not really following this thread closely, but referring to a positive review by TW to back up a claim about anything seems pointless. They are in the tennis racket sales business, and as such, essentially give everything a positive review. If Prince brings out a hairbrush and markets it as a tennis racket, don't be surprised to read something like the following:

"With a swingweight of 50 and an 8" length, Playtester Chris found the hairbrush very maneuverable at the net, while Wendy found the open bristle pattern great for spin..."

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!! That's hilarious!!!

 

Chris will be contacting you soon. You're a "natural" as a play tester.

- KK

 

I really don't enjoy ohplease but do commend him/her on this applet. As a suggestion, I would suggest that since the other data is in there, that PowerIndex ratings be included as that combines several of the elements into a useful power reference uideline

 

This is the "I don't like your validation method" argument.

1) "TW reviews are not to be trusted" - show me a more objective place for tennis racket reviews and I'll validate my results against theirs.

2) In fact, even at a place as "biased" as TW, you can look at the normal distribution of their scoring. For example, the overall score is something like 76 +/- 3. 73 and below is probably not a very good frame. 79 and above probably is. Numbers need context. In between is pretty much average, give or take. So regardless of how evil or conspiratorial TW may or may not be, there are still ways to make use of their ratings.

People object to TW reviews and Tennis Magazine reviews because they've potentially got a bias or conflict of interest. They object to the applet because there is no bias, or its bias doesn't match their bias. In fact the only thing they appear NOT to object to is their own opinions. See any 10 page thread in the rackets forum if that's the kind of thing you want - there are plenty of those for you to persue.

In fact, I'm so nice, I'll even tell you WHY you're so irritated with what the applet is telling you.

1) It's telling you, both explicitly and implicitly, that the world of tennis simply doesn't share your dearly held opinions. That your personal experience doesn't translate to the tennis world at large.

On these boards, that's got to hurt. Because we're all experts, right? Special? Your opinion matters more than everyone else's right?

2) It's also telling you that your definition of normal is both off-target and unsupported, except for anecdotal evidence. This is the old my experience is better than your experience game. Borrrrrrring.

In fact, some posters are working VERY hard to make it seem like their opinions are shared by all, upping the volume and the post count to drag the boards' perceptions to match their own. Now they're presented with hard evidence that all that work is pretty much pointless. I'd be irritated too if I had wasted my time so frivolously.

 

I think you're trying to use statistical methods to determine which is the right racquet for an individual. Might be good in theory, but I don't think this is very useful in practice. As I said earlier, there is no rationale for someone liking one racquet over another, or having an opinion of a racquet that is different from 99% of other people's opinions. It doesn't really matter as he is still going to use what he likes, isn't he? Besides, there's no reason we have to use ANY racquet that is currently offered to us by the manufacturers. Just because they sell it or just because everyone else is using it, does not mean it's the right racquet for me or that I will even like it. That's what makes the Vantage option so great.

So what???? The only thing that matters to me are my own opinions. I really couldn't care less that other people disapprove of the racquet that I use. I guess there are some people that need approval from others before they do or buy anything, but that's certainly not me!

So should I change my opinion to correspond with the opinion of the majority? Do I even care about the opinions of others? Of course my opinion does not matter more than others, but it's MY opinion, and I'm certainly NOT going to change it just to gain approval from others here nor anywhere!

No, my experience is NOT better, but it is MY experience and I'm certainly not going to let anyone tell me what my experience SHOULD be.

Why should I even care that what I like is "off-target and unsupported"? It's what I like and that's all that matters because I'm the one using it. Shouldn't people think independently instead of just using a racquet that others deem "normal" and has the approval of others. If not, how sad.

Like I said, I don't care if NO ONE shared my opinion. It's still my opinion and I'm certainly not going to change my opinion just to match the opinions of others. So if everyone says that they play great with a LM Prestige, am I supposed to change my opinion and say that I also played well with it even though I didn't? I mean, I do have my own brain, after all.

 

I still cannot figure out what "C.O.P." is....

- KK

 

I believe it's "Center Of Percussion".

 

OP:

It's not "Little Red Riding Hood." It's Goldilocks who wanted the porridge that was not too hot and not too cold, the bed that was not too soft, not too hard, etc.. Sheesh!

Interesting idea. Many racquet parameters are easily measured, but many are dynamic and nearly impossible to measure. The human variable confounds your exercise, as well. Good topic for February, when nothing else is happening.

 

BreakPoint is right, it's Center Of Percussion. It's the part of the sweetspot that when hit doesn't cause any backward rotational force on the racket.

 

"What if someone then attempted to define the Little Red Riding Hood frame - not too much or too little of anything, just right. What if just right actually meant within the "normal" range of +/- 1 SD? Nothing out of balance."


I think you mean Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

 

My bad - Goldilocks it is.

You're right about some things being impossible to measure. Hence the approach used here. Given a user specified sample - what are the ranges +/- one SD? Now what frames are consistent with the upper and lower bounds I care about? I might not be able to measure what makes the sample I selected "good" - heck, I might not even know what that quality is, much less measure it - but something made me define those ranges. Now what else fits? What doesn't fit? Why? Can I get over the reasons it doesn't fit and rationalize my purchase anyway? Maybe I can tweak the bounds to get the answer I want?

Oh wait. Sorry. I was channeling the typical TW board poster.

There is, of course, the assumption that the indefinable "it" of a "great" or "classic" frame is somehow correlated across all these specs. There's a nonzero chance that's indeed the case - but not very likely.

As an aside, the total sample now includes the granniest of the granny frames.

 

There are problems with the analysis. Racquet specs aren't independent variables. For example, weight and flex affect each other. Also, a person's response to an individual spec is not necessarily linear. A person's opinion of a racquet is made by considering the variables all together, not individually.

 

lol, el oh el,

you people get to critical, just go practice, everybodys different, develop your own techniques, its not rocket science, you don;t have forums like this for soccer, basketball, etc... well im sure there are, but more like whos gonna win the world cup, rather then geeks worrying about the tension of their string racquet. lol

 

I never claimed it wasn't problem free. I'm claiming it's better than what's out there. Further, I'm not doing a regression, nor am I trying to isolate personal response against each spec. I'm doing just the opposite, in fact.

If that's the kind of study you'd like to do, feel free.

 

Wow, so much hostility towards someone offering a free service.

 

No kidding....guys, it is just a tool, use it or don't use it. If it is meaningful for you, great. If not, great. Quit trying to tear down something. Personally, I couldn't get the link to work. Doesn't much matter because I play with what I have....

OhPlease,
Initially, I thought you were doing this to try to bring reason to this discussion. Your post #32 (I think) makes me doubt this. Like I said, the link does not work for me, so I can't really tell what you are doing. If you are doing this to advance the discussion then great...just ignore the negative posts. If you are doing this to advance an agenda or to try to prove a point, then you have lost me. Your post that I referenced seems to lean to the latter.

 

The Applet loaded for me, although it took a while. I didn't play around with it, but it seemed sort of like TW's racket finder with more options.

Even if TW reviews are biased, it's an extra set of characterstics to filter by, and that may be helpful for some!

I also like Mojo's suggestion to add the USRSA power rating. That should be easy to do since it can be calculated.

 

Center Of imPact?
Center Of Power?
Center Of Pain?
Center Of Palm?
Center Of Parabola?
Center Of Pendulum?
Center Of Perfection?
Center Of Pi?

???

- KK

 

Still wondering what COP is? You must have missed the earlier posts.

COP is Center Of Percussion. It's the part of the sweetspot that when hit doesn't cause any backward rotational force on the racket.

Edit: Nice guesses though!

 

I'm doing it mainly because I want to. That the exercise reveals some interesting answers is a nice side benefit. That people don't like those answers is par for this course. #32 simply addresses others' objections - both legitimate (validation of results) and not (the rest). Believe me, I've been doing my share of ignoring of negativity on this thread - but in the end you're right. My bad.

You need to load the java plugin for your browser. Should happen automatically (and will take a while if the plugin needs to be installed). You'll need to download and install yourself if your browser is old or you've got nonstandard security settings or something.

Pssst - "center-of-percussion" - but vin already said that.

I'll think about adding the power ratings. I don't find them a very useful or accurate measure, but that might be mitigated by looking at them in a distribution.

 

"Center Of Percussion!!!!" Good grief! I'm a tennis player; not a dad-gum [size=-2][Hard "G"][/size] ENGINEER.

Just to blow your minds, I'm hereby changing C.O.P. to "Coefficient of Pi." (Which won't help me any more than the other meaning....) Holy Cow!

Okay, ohplease. Sometime in the next few months I need to go through the whole DEMO process again. (Ugh!!!)

My racket has been discontinued ... and it wasn't all that popular in the first place ... so there are not large stockpiles of it in store rooms anywhere. I've arrived at some sticks I should demo based BOTH on the "old KK method" (Not at all scientific; just trial and error.) and the "ohplease method."

I'll keep you posted....

- KK

 

FYI, KK has me on his ignore list which is why he didn't see that I'd already answered his question on what C.O.P. means back in post #35.